Electronic Frontier Foundation - copyright trollhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/tags/copyright-troll
pt-brEFF To Represent Bloggers Against Copyright Trollhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/press/releases/eff-represent-bloggers-against-copyright-troll
<div class="field field-name-field-pr-subhead field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Prenda Law Firm attempts to silence critics DieTrollDie and FightCopyrightTrolls</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is joining with attorney Charles Lee Mudd Jr. to represent two blogs caught up in a bizarre lawsuit filed by Paul Duffy and Prenda Law LLC, Duffy's copyright troll law firm.</p>
<p>Copyright trolls try to make money by suing Internet users under various copyright laws. Their tactics include targeting large groups of anonymous "John Doe" defendants for downloading files on BitTorrent, seeking their identities, and exploiting the massive damages in copyright law in order to pressure defendants into settling quickly.</p>
<p>Duffy and his firm's tactics are frequent subjects of criticism on FightCopyrightTrolls (<a target="_blank" href="http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/">fightcopyrighttrolls.com</a>) and DieTrollDie (<a target="_blank" href="http://dietrolldie.com/">dietrolldie.com</a>), two watchdog blogs maintained by anonymous authors.</p>
<p>Late last month, Duffy and Prenda Law filed two separate defamation lawsuits in Illinois state court, which have since been removed to federal courts in the Northern and Southern districts of Illinois. The complaints claim the bloggers and their commenters defamed Duffy and his firm, despite the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.</p>
<p>"These lawsuits are a blatant attempt to abuse the legal process to punish critics," said EFF Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz.</p>
<p>Immediately after filing the suits, Duffy served a subpoena on Automattic Inc., the company that owns the Wordpress blogging platform. The subpoena seeks the IP addresses of everyone who ever visited the two websites, threatening the privacy of the bloggers and their readers. On Friday, Automattic rejected the subpoena in a letter to Duffy, calling it "legally deficient and objectionable" and a violation of the First Amendment right to speak anonymously.</p>
<p>"Not only is the subpoena improper under the First Amendment, it fails to comply with the simple rules for pre-trial discovery," EFF Staff Attorney Nate Cardozo added.</p>
<p>Automattic has stated unequivocally that it will not turn over any information until the bloggers' challenge to the lawsuit has played out in court. In order to protect this right to anonymity, EFF and the Mudd Law Office will not publicly release the names of their clients in this suit.</p>
<p>"Critics of the copyright troll business model have the right to speak anonymously without their identities being exposed to the trolls," said Kurt Opsahl, EFF Senior Staff Attorney. "These sweeping subpoenas create a chilling effect among those who have spoken out against Prenda."</p>
<p>Notorious copyright troll John Steele previously filed a similar lawsuit against the two blogs but dropped the suit last week without explanation.</p>
<h3>Contacts:</h3>
<p>Kurt Opsahl<br />
Senior Staff Attorney<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br />
<a href="mailto:kurt@eff.org">kurt@eff.org</a></p>
<p>Mitch Stoltz<br />
Staff Attorney<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br />
<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org">mitch@eff.org</a></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/tags/copyright-troll">copyright troll</a></div></div></div>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:58:38 +0000dm73450 at https://www.eff.orgFifth Circuit Upholds Sanctions Award Against Copyright Troll Attorneyhttps://www.eff.org/pt-br/deeplinks/2012/07/fifth-circuit-upholds-sanctions-award-against-copyright-troll-attorney
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/mickhaig-appellatedecision.pdf">affirmed</a> a <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/mickhaigv670does/mickhaig-17.pdf">district court order</a> imposing sanctions on Evan Stone, attorney for adult film producer Mick Haig Productions, who improperly issued subpoenas without leave of court to ISPs seeking the identities of anonymous subscribers in a mass end-user copyright infringement case. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/mick-haig-productions-v-does-1-670">Mick Haig lawsuit</a> was hardly unique, with Stone attempting to, in the words of the Court of Appeals, "repeat his strategy of suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally, using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars -- a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country." EFF has been a <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls">leader in opposing such "copyright troll" cases</a> and will continue to fight against them. These lawsuits are fraught with legal deficiencies that short-cut the privacy and due process rights of Internet users in the name of generating settlement income for plaintiffs instead of actually vindicating valid claims through the proper use of the legal process. What <i>was</i> new in the Mick Haig case was what district court Judge David Godbey described as Stone's "staggering chutzpah": Stone issuing subpoenas on his own without court permission, even though the court appointed EFF and Public Citizen to brief him on the relevant legal questions and even though Stone continued to argue that he <i>should</i> be able to proceed, all the while obtaining subscriber information from ISPs and (apparently) sending threat letters to subscribers directly. </p>
<p>In today's ruling, the Court of Appeals held that Stone had waived all of his various (meritless) arguments such as that he could have issued a different kind of subpoena to obtain the subscriber information, that sanctions couldn't be issued under the specific Federal Rules cited by the district court, and that EFF and Public Citizen lacked standing to bring a sanctions motion. Moreover, the Court held that "no miscarriage of justice will result from the sanctions imposed as a result of Stone’s flagrant violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the district court’s orders."</p>
<p>Lifting the temporary stay that it had earlier granted during the pendency of the appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions award ordered by the district court. In addition to paying a $10,000 sanction to the court, the sanctions award ordered that:</p>
<blockquote><p>1) Stone shall serve a copy of this Order on each ISP implicated and to every person or entity with whom he communicated for any purpose in these proceedings.</p>
<p>2) Stone shall file a copy of this Order in every currently-ongoing proceeding in which he represents a party, pending in any court in the United States, federal or state.</p>
<p>3) Stone shall disclose to the Court whether he received funds, either personally or on behalf of Mick Haig, and whether Mick Haig received funds for any reason from any person or entity associated with these proceedings, regardless of that person’s status as a Doe Defendant or not, (excepting any fees or expenses paid by Mick Haig to Stone).</p>
<p>4) Stone shall pay the Ad Litems’ attorneys’ fees and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions [in the amount of $22,040]. </p></blockquote>
<p>Also lifted is a stay on a subsequent <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/mickhaig-26.pdf">contempt sanctions order</a> -- imposed by Judge Godbey when Stone failed to comply with the initial sanctions order -- ordering Stone to pay $500 into the court registry per day "for each day he delays compliance with the Sanctions Order."</p>
<p>Stone's behavior was indeed some of the most flagrant ever seen in this space, a difficult feat with the bar already set so low given the standard intimidation and shame tactics used in many of these cases. Hopefully, the Fifth Circuit's order will help deter at least some of the most extreme abuses used by copyright troll litigants. </p>
<p>Once again, from Judge Godbey's initial <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/mickhaigv670does/mickhaig-17.pdf">sanctions opinion</a>: </p>
<blockquote><p>To summarize the staggering chutzpah involved in this case: Stone asked the Court to authorize sending subpoenas to the ISPs. The Court said “not yet.” Stone sent the subpoenas anyway. The Court appointed [EFF and Public Citizen] to argue whether Stone could send the subpoenas. Stone argued that the Court should allow him to – even though he had already done so – and eventually dismissed the case ostensibly because the Court was taking too long to make a decision. All the while, Stone was receiving identifying information and communicating with some Does, likely about settlement. The Court rarely has encountered a more textbook example of conduct deserving of sanctions.</p></blockquote>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-issue field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/anonymity">Anonymity</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/pt-br/issues/copyright-trolls">Copyright Trolls</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/issues/privacy">Privacy</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-related-cases field-type-node-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Related Cases:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/pt-br/cases/mick-haig-productions-v-does-1-670">Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670</a></div></div></div>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:37:31 +0000Matt Zimmerman71225 at https://www.eff.org